An Official Chapter of American's For Cannabis

In a 7-2 vote on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that deportation is not mandatory if a legal immigrant is convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana.

The ruling was in response to Moncrieffe v. Holder. Immigration officials automatically deported Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen who has lived in the United States since he was three years old, after he was convicted under Georgia law for possession and intent to distribute 1.3 grams of marijuana.“Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the majority that a conviction for marijuana possession does not rise to the level of an aggravated felony if it is a small amount and the defendant was not being paid for it,” reported Reuters.Moncrieffe could still face deportation, but Tuesday’s ruling means that he and others like him can contest the decision in further immigration proceedings.Ref. Source:Marijuana Policy Project

I quote the article above, “Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the majority that a conviction for marijuana possession does not rise to the level of an aggravated felony if it is a small amount and the defendant was not being paid for it,”

If we or I go on their words, the Key words here besides Marijuana, are "possession" = personal use = " if it is a small amount" and "defendant was not being paid for it" = defendant did not interfere with our commerce. In my opinion this is very important.

"If a noncitizen’s conviction for marijuana distribution fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana, it is not an aggravated felony under the INA. The Court employed the “categorical approach,” examining what the state conviction necessarily involved and not the facts underlying the case, and presuming that the conviction involved the least of the acts criminalized. Conviction under Georgia’s statute, alone, does not reveal whether either remuneration or more than a small amount was involved, so Moncrieffe’s conviction could correspond to either the CSA felony or the CSA misdemeanor. The Court rejected an argument that section 841(b)(4) was merely a mitigating sentencing factor, not an element of the offense. The government’s proposal that noncitizens be allowed, during immigration proceedings, to demonstrate that their convictions involved only a small amount of marijuana and no remuneration is inconsistent with the INA’s text and the categorical approach and would burden immigration courts and the noncitizens involved. Escaping aggravated felony treatment does not necessarily mean escaping deportation, because any marijuana distribution offense renders a noncitizen deportable as a controlled substances offender, but with an opportunity seek relief from removal."

* In other words, if a State Courts conviction fails to define or establish that the offense involved the defendant received "remuneration" = compensation... or that it was for "more than a small amount of marijuana", it may or may not be an aggravated felony under the INA. Just because it may or may not be under the C.S.A. State to State.

So this Ruling won't necessarily prevent you from being deported either, though it gives you an opportunity to Seek Relief... From who, them???As they go on to say, " The government’s proposal that noncitizens be allowed, during immigration proceedings, to demonstrate that their convictions involved only a small amount of marijuana and no remuneration is inconsistent with the INA’s text and the categorical approach and would burden immigration courts and the noncitizens involved. "

So what the hell does this all mean??? That it is the burden of each non citizen to make it to the Supreme Court to seek relief when being deported due to the CSA and a small amount of marijuana... and that they = the Supreme Court would not be over burdened with cases as they have determined would be a burden to non citizens and the INA? WTFE!!!???

After thought... or Did they just rule that a non citizen can sue Holder and DEA in the U.S. Courts for relief if or when they are deported over their personal use of small amounts of Marijuana ???Just trying to figure out where the Relief comes in?

Sounds as arbitrary as their "Madmen Rule" in my opinion. Moncrieffe v. Holder

Archives

Author

This site is created by Mary Thomas-Spears aka Rev. Mary Thomas, Founding Minister of Diverse Sanctuary Community Network who as Head Chairperson represents Kentucky For Cannabis, Board Member of American's For Cannabis; Also Artist, Author, Designer, Editor, Educator, Publisher, Web Master of Designing Your World; Founder of Stop the Ignorance, The Never Ending War on Drugs; Co-Founder of the Web of Life Group; Co-Founder of the organization Marijuana Nation; ...